June 3, 2009

"It's getting deep in here"

Government, Inc., is in full stride on a broad front to reduce carbon emissions so the world will be safe from the rising oceans, at least so goes the theory. Of course those bright p0liticians in Washington assure us it is not a theory but an established scientific fact that carbon emissions will cause the temperatures to rise and that the ice caps will melt and inundate the low lying regions of the world. We are assuming that they are only talking about the ice caps on Greenland and Antartica. The floating ice at the North Pole and those at the South Polar region will not add one inch to the ocean level even if they did melt entirely since they are already in the water. (When you have a glass of iced tea and the ice cubes melt the level in the glass does not rise and the same is true with the floating ice caps.)

Let's think through some of these assumptions they are making even if we aren't blessed with PhD's in climatology. Firstly, it should be remembered that the ice caps on Greenland and Antartica comprise about 2% of the total water on the planet. Only 3% of all the water on earth is fresh water, 97% is in the oceans already. All of the ice in those two spots will not melt. Maybe quite a bit of it but not all of it. Unless the earth flips or its tilt is dramatically altered those regions will always be very very cold because they have little sunlight during their respective winters. Those regions will remain cold for eons and much of the ice will remain and there will be future snow falls to replenish some of the ice. The earth was at one time totally dry and nothing but volcanic action and deserts existed; that was caused by the turmoil deep within the earth itself, not from the atmosphere. If all of the ice melts it would be due to other factors than carbon emissions. Something dramatic would have occured to the geology of the earth or its configuration in the heavens. In that event carbon emissions would be the least of our worries. We would all be dead.

I would like some very hard data from the bright guys giving their estimate about how much of the ice will in fact melt if their predictions are corret. We should all be allowed to see their data and then their conclusions. If half the ice remains then we are talking about a 1% increase in the total volume of water in the oceans. But that over states the case because a certain percentage of that water would be in the form of water vapor. That increase in water vapor will add to the snow fall amounts somewhere. There will always be an area of the earth that will be cold because it is away from the Sun. But assume it is 1% then how will that affect the ocean levels around the world?The earth is not perfectly round. It is egg shaped and furthermore the polar regions are flattened. Folks figured that out a few centuries ago before slide rules or computers were available. The distribution of the new water would not be evenly spaced everywhere on earth. Don't forget that the Moon has a tremendous influence on the oceans and the levels of them--ever heard of the tides? We also have to consider that for every action there is a reaction. As the volume of water was reduced on Greenland and Antartica the tremendous weight of that water would be reduced and those land masses would rise and I betcha there would be an offsetting deflection in the earth somewhere for that rise. That lowering of the earth's crust would take up at least some of the increased volume of water. That is basic geology and physics. I don't think carbon emissions will change those. Our crustal suface is only a few miles deep relative to the diameter of the earth. Mostly the interior is molten iron sloshing about. Thank goodness it does slosh about because that is what gives us our magnetic field which in turn is what protects us from the harmful radiations from the Sun; without that magnetic field we would die.

Assume the depth of the ocean off the Browery in New York Harbor is 100 feet right now. A 1% increase would be one foot. I don't think that would flood Manhattan. That assumption is based on a completely even distribution of the new melt water over the earth which is unlikely but a worse case scenario is ok. There would be some benefits too if the worst occurs. If great chunks of Greenland become ice free and the temperatures rise it would be ripe for food production as would a great many other areas of the world that were barren or ice bound. Siberia would become the new grain belt of the world.

I have an open mind on these matters but I want details, not conclusions and certainly not political posturing about this issue. What I don't like now is that is what we are getting. We are told temperatures are rising. Well, don't tell me that, show me the data. Is the temperature rising in Albany, Springfield, Arles, Munich, Darwin, etc.? What is the time period used? Lastly what is different about any rise in temperature this time that is different than those we have seen before. You historians will recall that the earth was quite warm during the Roman Empire days and the time of Jesus. All those people ran around with capes and togas. England at that time was one of the prime wine producing regions of the civilized world. Was it carbon emissions of that very small population that caused such a spike in temperatures then? I have questions. I learned long ago not to take as the gospel everything said by a pundit or a PhD with an agenda. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. We are investing trillions and gambling our economy on those conclusions that I am not sure about.

Noah managed to survive the great flood. I think we will survive the minor flood even if it does occur.